Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Gene Woodling lost a huge amount of his career to blind organizations and WWII. When he did finally make the majors, it was with Casey Stengel's Yankees, which means that he was platooned, apparently with Hank Bauer. - Brock Hanke

The writers didn't do too bad in retrospect though the two players we rated much higher than they did are Robinson and Doby.

The obvious observation here is that Robinson and Doby were underrated because of their race- and I wouldn't dismiss that option entirely out of hand- but I think it's more likely that this was due to the age-old issues of underrating on-base percentage and park effects.

The NL writers had previously honored Robinson in '49 and Campanella in '51 so they obviously weren't opposed to handing out hardware to African-American players (for further proof, they would soon embark on a string of seven straight African-American honorees from '53 to '59). The difference between Robinson in '49 and '52 can be summed up by his black ink. In '49, Robinson led the National League with flashy numbers in batting average (.342) and stolen bases (37). In '52, he finished first in only one category: on-base percentage (.440). Meanwhile, he had his lowest batting average in four years and his fewest RBI since his rookie season. Robinson simply didn't stand out in the Triple Crown categories while the eventual winner, Hank Sauer, finished first in home runs and RBI. Of course, we know that Sauer was helped by playing in the hitter's playground of Wrigley Field but voters didn't take park effects into account (and, Coors Field excepted, still don't).

Conversely, the baseball writers rated African-American pitcher Joe Black much more highly than MMP voters. Black finished in 3rd place in the MVP voting as a relief pitcher- and received the same number of 1st place votes as Sauer. He had a gaudy 2.15 ERA and 41 games finished (before the invention of the save). Yet he only showed up on one MMP ballot with a 10th-place vote.

As for the AL, the 12th place finish for Doby is a little harder to explain. In this case, I think it's more about the long-standing preference for team success, along with the age-old issue of underrating defense and all-around play.

Doby played for a stacked Cleveland Indians team that placed 6 players in the MVP voting between 5th and 13th. However, despite their numerous great players, the Indians finished second to the Yankees for the pennant. The writers were therefore reluctant to hand out an individual award to a stacked team that failed to make the postseason. They ended up splitting the votes between six players (Wynn, Lemon, Garcia, Rosen, Doby and Easter) and none of them were able to challenge for the top spot. Doby may have had more WAR than all of his teammates but he also had more of his WAR tied up in his defense than fellow position players Rosen and Easter. Plus, he lacked the signature number to compare with the pitchers- whether the one that eventually one the award (Shantz with his league-leading 24 wins) or his Cleveland teammates (each of whom had 20+ wins).

Congratulations to Jackie Robinson who became only the 2nd second baseman to win back-to-back MMPs (Joe Morgan went back-to-back in 1975 and '76). Robinson also joins a short list of multiple MMP champions: Willie Mays and Joe Morgan each have 3, while Carl Yastrzemski, Mike Schmidt, Cal Ripken Jr. and Mike Trout have 2 a piece.

Congratulations to Bobby Shantz, who won the pitching MMP for 1952. This is the second straight win for a Philadelphia pitcher, though last year's award was won by the Phillies' Robin Roberts. Shantz is the first member of the Athletics to win the pitching MMP though Vida Blue, Mike Norris and Steve McCatty all won the AL-only award. Shantz also joins Reggie Jackson, Vida Blue and Jose Canseco as A's to win the AL MMP.

Congratulations to Larry Doby who has been named the AL Position player MMP. Doby is the first player from Cleveland to win this award. Doby also joins an eclectic list of center fielders to be named the top position player in the American League: Mickey Mantle, Bobby Murcer, Fred Lynn, Rickey Henderson and Mike Trout.

Congratulations to Robin Roberts who has won his second straight award as the NL's pitching MMP. Roberts joins back-to-back winners Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Orel Hershiser and Clayton Kershaw. Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton and Phil Niekro also won multiple pitching MMPs thought not in a row.

And finally, congratulations to Dodgers pitcher Joe Black who added his name to the short list of relievers to receive an MMP vote. As they saw at the Academy Awards, it's an honor just to be nominated.

After posting the updated lists, I thought I'd do some digging to determine a few tie-breakers.

First, the 1961 pitching awards. For the official ballot, Don Drysdale, Whitey Ford and Warren Spahn officially tied as the top pitcher in 14th place (with one 10th place vote a piece). However, a lot of voters are kind enough to list their top 15 or 25 even when only 10 names are required. Based on the additional information, I noticed that Spahn was listed 1st or 2nd by 8 of 11 voters. No other pitcher was named in the top 4 more than 4 times. I think it's pretty safe to say that Spahn was the MMP for that season, dropping Drysdale into second for NL pitchers (based on 2 1st place nods and 1 3rd place mention).

The AL-only award is a little more tricky. Ford was the only AL pitcher to be mentioned on an official ballot. However, Frank Lary of the Tigers was mentioned first twice in extended ballots and Ford was only first the one time. The full range is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th for Ford against 2 1sts and 2 4ths for Lary- with a lot of votes outstanding (5 voters did not mention more than the mandatory 10 names). It's a statistical dead heat but I'm going to give it to Ford based on the cumulative total of their votes and the fact that one voter thought highly enough of Ford to include him on the actual ballot.

Second, the 1962 AL awards. In the official vote, Gary Peters, Bob Allison and Elston Howard finished 9th, 10th and 11th with 78, 76 and 74 points respectively. At the time, I declared it "too close to call" while OCF said, "The evidence is scant but it looks like we'd call Gary Peters the AL MMP." It's still close- as you'd expect with a tiebreaker- but the expanded ballots provide an interesting perspective.

Here's what they would look like on an AL only ballot (sorry I don't know how to format columns)

Howard clearly leapfrogs Allison as the top position player. And Peters clearly holds off Pascual as the top pitcher. But Howard now has a slight lead on Peters for the overall spot.

However, that's still not the entire picture. More voters mentioned additional names in '63 than in '61 and I was able to determine complete four-person AL-only ballots for 14 of the 17 voters. But that leaves three outstanding votes- enough to change the outcome. As much as I'd like to give it to Howard (I'm one of the voters who listed him first), I think we're safest going with OCF's original estimation. It's close, but it should be Peters based on the original vote (and the fact that he had more room to pick up points on outstanding ballots than Howard).

The AL-only award is a little more tricky. Ford was the only AL pitcher to be mentioned on an official ballot. However, Frank Lary of the Tigers was mentioned first twice in extended ballots and Ford was only first the one time. The full range is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th for Ford against 2 1sts and 2 4ths for Lary- with a lot of votes outstanding (5 voters did not mention more than the mandatory 10 names). It's a statistical dead heat but I'm going to give it to Ford based on the cumulative total of their votes and the fact that one voter thought highly enough of Ford to include him on the actual ballot.

Second, the 1962 AL awards. In the official vote, Gary Peters, Bob Allison and Elston Howard finished 9th, 10th and 11th with 78, 76 and 74 points respectively. At the time, I declared it "too close to call" while OCF said, "The evidence is scant but it looks like we'd call Gary Peters the AL MMP." It's still close- as you'd expect with a tiebreaker- but the expanded ballots provide an interesting perspective.

Here's what they would look like on an AL only ballot (sorry I don't know how to format columns)

Howard clearly leapfrogs Allison as the top position player. And Peters clearly holds off Pascual as the top pitcher. But Howard now has a slight lead on Peters for the overall spot.

However, that's still not the entire picture. More voters mentioned additional names in '63 than in '61 and I was able to determine complete four-person AL-only ballots for 14 of the 17 voters. But that leaves three outstanding votes- enough to change the outcome. As much as I'd like to give it to Howard (I'm one of the voters who listed him first), I think we're safest going with OCF's original estimation. It's close, but it should be Peters based on the original vote (and the fact that he had more room to pick up points on outstanding ballots than Howard).

Thanks again, John. That's good information to have even though it actually complicates things. I rewrote the final paragraph in post #18 multiple times as I wavered between Howard and Peters. I thought it should be Howard based on the expanded disclosures but I also didn't want my own bias as a Howard voter to determine the outcome. But you were one of the voters who hadn't listed 4 AL players. Now that I know you had Radatz listed ahead of Peters, that reduces Peters' opportunity to pick up additional votes. More precisely, it means that Howard and Peters have the same number of undeclared ballots (ie. they each show up on one of the incomplete ballots and not on the other). So I'm leaning back towards my earlier inclination that it should be Howard. Though I should probably stick with my initial assessment: "too close to call."

Alright, time for the next tiebreaker. This is the 1962 AL pitcher. The AL was consistently the weaker league during the '60s so the AL MMP often won with a low vote total and the league pitching MMP was frequently undetermined due to sparse ballot placements.

In 1962, Hank Aguirre finished 9th, narrowly edging out Camilo Pascual who finished 10th. At the time, I suggested that the 5 point difference was too close to call. But deeper research shows that the narrow lead on official ballots indicated an even greater edge. Aguirre was listed 1st 6 times, 2nd twice and 3rd once. Pascual was listed 2st 3 times, 2nd twice and 1st once. That's a very clear lead for Aguirre. Not only that but Pascual was nearly passed by Jim Kaat. Kaat finished a distant 17th on the official ballots, but on the expanded ballots he collected 1 first and 4 seconds. That's still third place but it means that Kitty is closer to Camilo than Camilo is to Hank. Dick Radatz had another good year as a reliever and showed up in 4th.

The 1966 AL pitcher tiebreaker was very easy. No AL pitcher was impressive enough to make a single ballot. However, half of the voters included additional disclosures of their #11-15 ballot spots. Of those voters, Earl Wilson was mentioned 1st 4 times, Jim Kaat once and Mike Cuellar once. Gary Peters was also mentioned once but in a second-place spot behind Wilson. So I'm calling this one for Earl Wilson in a (relative) landslide.

The 1967 AL pitcher tiebreaker was similarly easy. Joel Horlen, aka "Joe", was the only pitcher to receive a vote. However, it was a 2nd place vote which was a strange outlier and I wasn't prepared to hand out an award based on one voter. Well, that voter might have been an outlier but he wasn't that strange. Only five voters mentioned any AL pitchers in their expanded ballots but four of those five mentioned Horlen. The final vote went to Dean Chance. It's another clear-cut victory even if it wasn't a historically dominant season.

Last one (not including the still up-in-the-air '63 vote): the 1976 NL pitching MMP. Randy Jones, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver each received 1 low-ballot vote. That wasn't enough to determine a winner at the time. But, based on further research, the expanded ballots clarify the issue- while also exposing a dark horse candidate. Anyway, Tom Seaver is the winner based on the additional disclosures. He was mentioned on 5 expanded ballots with 2 firsts and 3 seconds. No one else was mentioned on more than 3 ballots or had more than 2 firsts. So Seaver it is. In second place, it's a surprising finish for Giants' pitcher John Montefusco. He wasn't named on any of the official ballots, but he was named 3 times on expanded ballots for 2 first and a second. Randy Jones was also named 3 times with a first, a second and third. Phil Niekro also snuck into the mix with a first and a third. As for Carlton, his official 12th place vote was his only mention on any ballot, dropping him from a virtual tie to a distant 5th.

By the way, this means that Seaver now has 4 NL pitching MMPs including back to back victories in '75 and '76 (he also won in '71 and '73). That breaks a tie with Sandy Koufax for the top mark.

After all of that, I did leave one tie in place. It was the 1974 pitching MMP shared by Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry. The other situations all involved low ballot votes which weren't necessarily indicative of consensus. However, Niekro and Perry both received broad support and finished in a tie for 5th overall. That's pretty respectable. So I'm leaving it a tie, kind of like the Keith Hernandez/Willie Stargell MVP award in 1979.

The 1966 AL pitcher tiebreaker was very easy. No AL pitcher was impressive enough to make a single ballot. However, half of the voters included additional disclosures of their #11-15 ballot spots. Of those voters, Earl Wilson was mentioned 1st 4 times, Jim Kaat once and Mike Cuellar once. Gary Peters was also mentioned once but in a second-place spot behind Wilson. So I'm calling this one for Earl Wilson in a (relative) landslide.

Wilson? I can't see him at all as #1. I have (in this order) Kaat, Peters and then Wilson.

The 1967 AL pitcher tiebreaker was similarly easy. Joel Horlen, aka "Joe", was the only pitcher to receive a vote. However, it was a 2nd place vote which was a strange outlier and I wasn't prepared to hand out an award based on one voter. Well, that voter might have been an outlier but he wasn't that strange. Only five voters mentioned any AL pitchers in their expanded ballots but four of those five mentioned Horlen. The final vote went to Dean Chance. It's another clear-cut victory even if it wasn't a historically dominant season.

Last one (not including the still up-in-the-air '63 vote): the 1976 NL pitching MMP. Randy Jones, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver each received 1 low-ballot vote. That wasn't enough to determine a winner at the time. But, based on further research, the expanded ballots clarify the issue- while also exposing a dark horse candidate. Anyway, Tom Seaver is the winner based on the additional disclosures. He was mentioned on 5 expanded ballots with 2 firsts and 3 seconds. No one else was mentioned on more than 3 ballots or had more than 2 firsts. So Seaver it is. In second place, it's a surprising finish for Giants' pitcher John Montefusco. He wasn't named on any of the official ballots, but he was named 3 times on expanded ballots for 2 first and a second. Randy Jones was also named 3 times with a first, a second and third. Phil Niekro also snuck into the mix with a first and a third. As for Carlton, his official 12th place vote was his only mention on any ballot, dropping him from a virtual tie to a distant 5th.

By the way, this means that Seaver now has 4 NL pitching MMPs including back to back victories in '75 and '76 (he also won in '71 and '73). That breaks a tie with Sandy Koufax for the top mark.

I hate to say this, since Seaver was my favorite player growing up, but my NL order would be Koosman (another Met, so that's okay :-), Montefusco and then Seaver tied with Rawly Eastwick. Having said that, they're all close enough for me not to worry about it.

I had noticed the Musial/Aaron thing as well. I wasn't as concerned about Musial because I am sure he will win at least one when we get to the 1940s. But doing a quick cursory look through the 50s, Hank may get shut out. But that happen to you even if you are a top 15 all-time player when you share your entire prime with a top 5 player (Mays) and a peak-heavy top 15 player (Mantle) as well as half your prime overlapping with another top 5 (Williams) and another top 15 (Musial) player.

Obviously it depends upon your system, and I'm on my phone right now, so I don't have access to Seamheads or DanR WAR, but each of BB-Ref, FG, Chone, BP and Davenport all have Banks with a higher WAR than Aaron.

I don't use Win Shares, so if that's your preferred system, Aaron is ahead in that.

No, Radatz is still my answer. I figured out which year you were referring to yesterday, Chris. :-)

I was pretty sure you had followed my train of thought but I've been wrong before (and in this thread, too!).

bjhanke:

Looking at Chris' list, I noticed something very unintuitive. Neither Stan Musial nor Hank Aaron was won a MMP yet, although Hank did win one NL MMP. - Brock Hanke

Yeah, I noticed that, too. For Musial, I think it's a matter of timing. I wouldn't be surprised to see him win 2 or 3 MMPs once we delve into the '40s. He had monster seasons in '43, '44, '46 and '48. It's possible he loses out to the AL leader on a couple of those, but I doubt he'll be shut out.

I'm not as sure about Aaron. It's a testament to his career that he was consistently excellent year after year but he didn't have the stand out individual seasons to match up with Koufax or Mays. I think he still has a shot at picking up an award in the late '50s but he'll have to duke it out with Mickey Mantle and Ernie Banks. Aaron will likely get my first place vote in '59 but I don't know that he'll get the majority.

Wilson? I can't see him at all as #1. I have (in this order) Kaat, Peters and then Wilson.

As I noted, Wilson was listed first 67% of the time. That's not a landslide victory but it is a clear one. I was a little surprised that Wilson rated so well myself, but he did finish first in bWAR that season for AL pitchers.

John Murphy:

I hate to say this, since Seaver was my favorite player growing up, but my NL order would be Koosman (another Met, so that's okay :-), Montefusco and then Seaver tied with Rawly Eastwick. Having said that, they're all close enough for me not to worry about it.

I'm simply tabulating the results on these run-offs. I was the lone voter who had Randy Jones first so I wasn't exactly rooting for Seaver myself. But he had more top-ballot support than either Jones or Carlton and more full ballot support than Montefusco. Sometimes you're in the minority, sometimes you're not. This time, it looks like we were both in the other 45% that preferred someone else to Seaver. Of course, if we could have agreed on who that other pitcher was, that other pitcher might just have beat Tom.

As I noted, Wilson was listed first 67% of the time. That's not a landslide victory but it is a clear one. I was a little surprised that Wilson rated so well myself, but he did finish first in bWAR that season for AL pitchers.

No problem, Chris. I knew it was a fait accompli when I made my post. :-)

I'm simply tabulating the results on these run-offs. I was the lone voter who had Randy Jones first so I wasn't exactly rooting for Seaver myself. But he had more top-ballot support than either Jones or Carlton and more full ballot support than Montefusco. Sometimes you're in the minority, sometimes you're not. This time, it looks like we were both in the other 45% that preferred someone else to Seaver. Of course, if we could have agreed on who that other pitcher was, that other pitcher might just have beat Tom.

Heh. I know you're just the tabulator. As I posted before, it's close enough that I'm not sure if I'm right, anyway.

Obviously it depends upon your system, and I'm on my phone right now, so I don't have access to Seamheads or DanR WAR, but each of BB-Ref, FG, Chone, BP and Davenport all have Banks with a higher WAR than Aaron.

I don't use Win Shares, so if that's your preferred system, Aaron is ahead in that.

While I'm more partial to Win Shares than the other systems, I don't rely on it fully. If I did, I wouldn't have Mathews slightly ahead of Aaron. IMO, all of the analytical systems have flaws and can't be relied on solely.

As for Banks, I still can't see him as clearly superior to either Aaron or Mathews. There is a big gap in offense between those two and him and, while I have Ernie as the best shortstop in the majors, he wasn't Ozzie Smith good defensively to make up that offensive gap (and then some). At any rate, should be an interesting discussion in '59. :-)

I completely agree that all the systems have their flaws - that's why I use a combination of WAR systems instead of just relying on one (primarily because of the differences in defensive values).

Its just my insignificant opinion, but I've never been a fan of WS for the actual HoM to measure career greatness because of the zero replacement level. But on a seasonal level for purposes like the MMP, the zero replacement level isn't an issue. I just don't use it since I use my regular HoM spreadsheet as my starting point for MMP calculations and just didn't feel like adding another layer of numbers to my calculations.

And on a side note, as a fairly newcomer to the HoM, since I'm in this discussion with you, I just wanted to thank you for all your effort over the years from ballot counting to your Dickey Pearce campaigning, and everything else.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. For Musial, I think it's a matter of timing. I wouldn't be surprised to see him win 2 or 3 MMPs once we delve into the '40s. He had monster seasons in '43, '44, '46 and '48. It's possible he loses out to the AL leader on a couple of those, but I doubt he'll be shut out.

I've been seeing this as well. Right now, Stan's been a bridesmaid plenty (or at least MoH), but yet to be a bride. I think the 40's are key for him too, but I have doubts he's going to win three.
It would be interesting to see who has the most top five or top three finishes-my bet is that Stan is high on that list. Wouldn't shock me if Aaron did well there also.
I suspect because the proliferation of WAR systems many are using as bases (Myself included)the MMP is going to work against multi tool accumulators who play positions on the low end of the defensive spectrum. So far we only have 5 corner OF (Yaz x 2, FRobby, Reggie and Canseco) and only one 1b (Carew of all people); in sum, 6 out of 33 electees.Not only that,but Reggie was the lowest % winner so far and Yaz and Canseco also failed to win over 50% of the vote.So the corner OF is comprised of two triple crowns and three tightly contested elections. On the flip side, high on the defensive spectrum, we have 7 CF, 5 2b and 4 SS. Curiously, no C has won an MVP yet. Still, 16 of 33 elections have gone to up the middle players.
For a player such as Aaron whose specialty was non-specialization and historic consistency, it's gonna be a tough hill to climb.
Musial on the other hand went apeshit for like a decade.Very high BA, lots of OPS+, good power hitter and extra base machine. He's been getting dinged for positioning and, some years, bad defense, both of which I find myself questioning a bit. It was always my understanding that Musial was a good defensive OF, capable of playing CF had Terry Moore not been a Card, and I tend to think that a player who is willing to play all over the diamond wherever needed ala Zobrist, w/o complaining/disruption while maintaining production is a very valuable chip. I'm not sure if this is factored into the rating systems, if not it should be. As a manager I'd love a guy I could shove in any OF spot or stick at first, need dependent.
Either way, I expect the forties to be kinder, especially 48. The war years look pretty sweet for him too.

I completely agree that all the systems have their flaws - that's why I use a combination of WAR systems instead of just relying on one (primarily because of the differences in defensive values).

That's what I try to do, though I admittedly lean toward WS.

Its just my insignificant opinion, but I've never been a fan of WS for the actual HoM to measure career greatness because of the zero replacement level. But on a seasonal level for purposes like the MMP, the zero replacement level isn't an issue. I just don't use it since I use my regular HoM spreadsheet as my starting point for MMP calculations and just didn't feel like adding another layer of numbers to my calculations.

Anybody who used WS straight up without doing further analysis with the numbers in the system is wrong, IMO. The one thing I am glad it doesn't have is a replacement level, at least for our purposes here. I don't believe negating a player's worth for evaluating greatness belongs in our discussion. For win projections for a team? Different story.

And on a side note, as a fairly newcomer to the HoM, since I'm in this discussion with you, I just wanted to thank you for all your effort over the years from ballot counting to your Dickey Pearce campaigning, and everything else.

You're very welcome, Michael. Bringing to light the forgotten 19th-century and NeL players was the most enjoyable and rewarding part of the whole project, IMO.

On Win Shares (which I like better than any of the WAR systems, but that's partially because the various WAR systems seem to have their defensive numbers still in development) -

Win Shares does not have a replacement level, but it does have a zero point, which Bill often calls the "margin." The zero point of offense is half the league average of runs. The defensive zero point is 1.5 times the league average of runs. Any system, as far as my math skills will tell me, has to have a zero point somewhere, even if it's at absolute zero. (I spent several months trying to figure out what "absolute zero" would mean on defense, to deal with DHs, but this turned out to be impossible - it's an infinite number of runs allowed, no way around that.)

It's easy to confuse the two concepts. Replacement level is meant as an organic stat - it's the level at which you get sent down to AAA ball. Consequently, there are lots of arguments as to where it should be (although I did see a comment some weeks ago about the various WAR designers having a consensus meeting and coming up with a consensus replacement rate). Zero point is meant as a purely mathematical concept, although "half the league runs scored per game" certainly has its organic component in there. Bill chose his zero points because he was trying to model a curve with a line, and has the zero points where the curve starts to get away from the linear model. He does defend himself by going through the research to find real players or real teams that produced numbers beyond the zero points, but didn't find any except for real small sample sizes on cup-of-coffee seasons.

In any case, it's important to realize that "replacement rate" and "zero point" are not exactly the same concept, and that every system has to have a zero point somewhere. - Brock Hanke

I took a quick look at Musial in the 1940s, using only Win Shares, which I can look up in a book not on the internet. It looks like Stan Musial may well win only one MMP in his entire career. The only year where he is pretty much a lock is 1948, his best year and a slight off year for Ted Williams. Other than that, his problems with the '40s are: 1) Williams, when not in the army, 2) Luke Appling in 1943, and 3) Dizzy Trout in 1944. He shows as winning several NL MMPs, but Williams turns out to be just too hard a hurdle to clear, and Appling and Trout turned in huge seasons in '43 and '44. - Brock